Moving on from logical frameworks to find the ‘missing middle’ in international development programmes

Theory-driven approaches to evaluation are increasingly employed in international development programmes to assess how programmes achieve outcomes – planned and unplanned. While the logical framework has long been used in international development, several leading international organisations are turning to theory-of-change (TOC) and realist approaches. For development practitioners, the nomenclature and process of constructing programme theory can seem daunting and the added value unclear. Using a real-world case study, this paper aims to demystify the terminology behind three theory-driven approaches (i.e. the logical framework, TOC and realist approaches) and address questions of why and how theory-driven evaluation can be incorporated into practice to provide a more informed and nuanced understanding of how programmes ‘work’. Using a nutrition case study, we highlight the key differences and commonalities between each approach and illustrate the process of constructing programme theory for each approach. A combination of the TOC and realist approaches is then explored to identify the added benefit to a combined approach in constructing programme theory. The combination of approaches provides a deeper knowledge of context and mechanisms required for change. Five guiding principles are identified to facilitate in the application of this combined approach.